I think women, or anyone who's concerned enough with being attacked that they carry a weapon, walking around with handguns is dangerous and ultimately ineffective.
What are the chances your average professional woman will be able or willing to shoot someone when under stress? The chances of hitting a target aren't great to begin with, and that's assuming she can bring herself to actually pull the trigger.
Non lethal solutions like bear spray are IMO a much better option for several resons.
1) It's much more likely anyone would be willing to use it against an attacker as they don't have to think that they might kill someone
2) It's much more likely to be effective, as it's a lot easier to hit someone with a stream of liquid than a small bullet 3) It can't be used fatally against the woman who has it. Sure it won't be pleaseant if her attacker gets a hold of it, but the consequences are nothing compared to having her own gun turned on her
4) It's not potentially lethal against innocent bystanders
My mom spends a lot of time alone at my folks cabin. My dad is pretty pro gun, and when my folks decided my mom should have some way to defend herself when she's out there alone, they sure as hell didn't decide it would be a good idea to have a gun lying around the house, as as soon as it becomes useful for her to protect herself, it introduces a whole new danger to the rest of the household.
Seriously? Because if the dude turns the table on her with bear spray she is probably going to be raped and killed anyways. Instead of being shot with her own gun she killed by a knife, or strangled to death YEAHHHH
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PIMking
Are you implying my fiance is ######ed? Because when people come home they don't tend to Van Dam the door in and ram sack the place on their way to the bed room.
No, I most certainly am not.
Are you implying that your fiance is completely infallible and incapable of making the same mistakes a huge number of people in exactly her situation have made?
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Are you implying that your fiance is completely infallible and incapable of making the same mistakes a huge number of people in exactly her situation have made?
She could but the chances of seeing Jesus walk in front of me are better.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PIMking
Seriously? Because if the dude turns the table on her with bear spray she is probably going to be raped and killed anyways. Instead of being shot with her own gun she killed by a knife, or strangled to death YEAHHHH
I noticed you didn't even address the other points, and your rebuttal to this one is kind of irrelevant.
You can't deny that the potential for a woman to be killed with her own firearm isn't way higher than her being killed with her own bearspray.
Realistically the chance of an average woman stopping an assailant with bear spray is probably way higher than her stopping him with a gun.
Moreover, the risk to her being killed by her own weapon is indisputably lower with bearspray than a gun.
Saying that she might get killed in a worse way is entirely contrary to your point. Unless of course you're advocating people carying guns because it'll be a quicker death for them should they fail to stop their assailant.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 04-19-2011 at 02:56 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfest
uh, like what?
A man with a gun enters your home...what are some safer and effective methods of your defending you and your family?
I've said it a few times, but I'd actually rather have bear spray than a gun if someone broke into my home, which says a lot about both my thoughts on gun safety and my expectation that I'll have to deal with such a situation, especially considering I have several guns that would be no use in just such a situation, but despite that I don't own any bear spray.
A) it's safer for me
B) it's safer for my neighbours
C) it's likely to be much more effective, I don't even have to hit the guy, if I spray it in his general direction it's likely it'll be effective enough to stop him outright, or at least make him get out of there
D) this part is debatable, but it's likely to keep the situation from escalating. I'd be willing to bet that someone breaking into my house with a gun is a lot more likely to return fire if I shoot first and miss, than if he's just been pepper sprayed.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 04-19-2011 at 02:58 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Self-defense may be a more important part of the overall crime control effort than is popularly recognized. In the mass media, it is usually assumed that crime fighting is the exclusive province of the criminal justice system; that is, the police, courts, and corrections organizations. The citizen is relegated to providing information to the police and in court as well as occasionally acting as a juror.
It is often recommended by some authorities that the citizen should not resist the criminal attacker.[2] It is argued that resistance will provoke the attacker into committing greater injury.[3] It is also argued that the use of a weapon for self-defense, particularly a firearm, is likely to result in greater harm to the victim than would otherwise be the case.[4] It is also argued that the weapon is likely to result in direct harm to the owner when there is no outside attack.[5] For example, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence quotes A. Kellerman, "A gun in the home for self-protection is 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill an intruder".[6] [Page 218]
On the other hand, there are surveys which indicate that civilians use firearms for predominately self-defense purposes. For example, Kleck and Gertz (1995) found that each year there are some "2.2 to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns of all types by civilians against humans".[7] Additionally Cook and Ludwig (1997) found that there were about 1.5 million defensive uses annually.[8] These surveys are unable to tell us how successful these defenses are, what the effects would be if the defenders did not have guns for defense, or if the defenders are themselves criminals.
Without the civilian guns being used to deter and stop crimes, the numbers of completed crimes could well double. It would undoubtedly be the case that increased gun ownership would further reduce crime. [Page 245]
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PIMking
She could but the chances of seeing Jesus walk in front of me are better.
Well that certainly isn't exactly the kind of thing EVERYONE who's ever been involved in the thousands of gun accidents that happen every year have have all said.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
I've said it a few times, but I'd actually rather have bear spray than a gun if someone broke into my home.
A) it's safer for me
B) it's safer for my neighbours
C) it's likely to be much more effective, I don't even have to hit the guy, if I spray it in his general direction it's likely it'll be effective enough to stop him outright, or at least make him get out of there
You say its safer for YOU.
Dont speak for people that actually own guns and have used them before.
I fail to see how bear spray would be more effective then a gun for someone that owns and has used a gun before.
A) Lets say you miss with the bear spray, you're going to likely get shot at now.
B) Even if hit the intruder with the bear spray, you essentially need to hit him in the face, even if you do, it may not be good enough to stop him. (With a gun theres a much bigger target area for you to hit/stop the intruder.
C) The guy has a gun, you have bear spray, more times then not the gun will win.
“And yes, the founding fathers wanted you to have the right to bear arms, but the guys who wrote that would pee through all eight layers of their pants if they saw what guns are now. In 1787 shooting a bullet was only slightly faster than throwing one. If you wanted to be bullet proof in 1787 you put on a heavy coat. So with that in mind, I’m all about Americans having guns, as long as they’re the muskets from 1787 that take forever to load.”
- Seth Meyers - SNL Weekend Update 1/15/11
I've kinda chuckled at this quote.
But the weapons that were available were interesting
Flintlock Musket - it would take a good man 20 seconds to reload it, accurate out to 100 meters. Muzzle velocity was up to 900 f/s, and because the rounds were crude ball ammunition, they probably did more damage then todays sleek bullets.
Flintlock pistol - was probably only accurate in terms of feet, they were a single shot, but again had a muzzle velocity of about 500 fps, same problem with the bullet, it it hit you it did major damage
The Pennsylvania .50 caliber rifle was probably the first sniper rifle, it had an effective range of 100 yards accurate, still took 20 seconds to reload, but had a 1300 mps muzzle velocity, it was a smooth bore rifle which meant that by the standards of those days it was very accurate, as oppossed to the musket which gave you a 1 in 3 change of hitting anything in its effective range. It also used a heavy high calibre ball which would tear a big chunk out of you on its way through.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
the Captain has explained it in his post much better than I ever could. Just way too many things that could go wrong having a gun at home for "self defense".
You say its safer for YOU.
Dont speak for people that actually own guns and have used them before.
I fail to see how bear spray would be more effective then a gun for someone that owns and has used a gun before.
A) Lets say you miss with the bear spray, you're going to likely get shot at now.
B) Even if hit the intruder with the bear spray, you essentially need to hit him in the face, even if you do, it may not be good enough to stop him. (With a gun theres a much bigger target area for you to hit/stop the intruder.
C) The guy has a gun, you have bear spray, more times then not the gun will win.
Bear mace is an extremely potent chemical, and you can't really miss with it. I've seen an entire house party cleared out from a tiny blast of the stuff.
You know for being such a non violent anti gun society Canadians seem to love Hockey fights....
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
A man with a gun enters your home...what are some safer and effective methods of your defending you and your family?
Well there's a few interesting things to think about. Like...
1) Would robbers often carry guns in countries where homeowners are unlikely to be defending themselves with guns? Seems like there would be a direct link between robbers needing to arm themselves if homeowners have armed themselves.
2) What percentage of robbers commit their robberies with a gun? Is this percentage different in a country like Canada vs the US
3) What percentage of fatal shooting of family members happen in countries like Canada vs the US
Sure in general I agree with the idea of defending oneself and one's property. But there's a line between taking reasonable precaution and paranoia. In my 30+ years of living in Canada I have yet to meet a single person who was robbed at gunpoint. In fact I can't recall meeting a single person whose home was invaded by robbers. Almost every theft I've heard of has been an auto theft, usually of stereo equipment.
Someone should trot out home invasion statistics for Canada/US and armed home invasion statistics for both. How many times the home owners were shot in the case of an armed invasion and in how many cases of said shootings did the home owner try and defend themselves with a gun.
I suspect the statistics are quite low per capita and that if someone was truly concerned about safety it would be more meaningful to stop driving a car than to own a gun to protect yourself from robbers.
The chance of being robbed is higher in certain communities than other communities. You might do more to protect yourself from robberies by moving than you would by owning a gun.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerfest
You say its safer for YOU.
Dont speak for people that actually own guns and have used them before.
I fail to see how bear spray would be more effective then a gun for someone that owns and has used a gun before.
A) Lets say you miss with the bear spray, you're going to likely get shot at now.
B) Even if hit the intruder with the bear spray, you essentially need to hit him in the face, even if you do, it may not be good enough to stop him. (With a gun theres a much bigger target area for you to hit/stop the intruder.
C) The guy has a gun, you have bear spray, more times then not the gun will win.
Okay, you clearly haven't read any of my posts in this thread. If you had you'd probalby have realized that I am one of those people that owns and has used a gun before.
In fact I'd put my fireamrs exprience up against most folks on this board in a heartbeat. (funny too that the guy with probalby the most, Captain Crunch, seems to agree with me on this one).
My entire point about it being safer for me is that I'm not going to accidentially kill myself, with bear spray, nor is an assailant withoug a gun going to kill me with it. That is certianly a possibility with a gun.
The rest of my points rest on the fact that in a tense situation it's incredibly unlikley that your average joe is going to be able to actually shoot at and hit an intruder, espeically in the dark.
With bear spray, if you get it in the person's general vicininty it's going to be at least partially effective.
With a gun you need to be accurate, with pepper spray you don't.
You actually have a MUCH LARGER target that you can hit with bearspray than you do with a gun.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Well there's a few interesting things to think about. Like...
1) Would robbers often carry guns in countries where homeowners are unlikely to be defending themselves with guns? Seems like there would be a direct link between robbers needing to arm themselves if homeowners have armed themselves.
2) What percentage of robbers commit their robberies with a gun? Is this percentage different in a country like Canada vs the US
3) What percentage of fatal shooting of family members happen in countries like Canada vs the US
Sure in general I agree with the idea of defending oneself and one's property. But there's a line between taking reasonable precaution and paranoia. In my 30+ years of living in Canada I have yet to meet a single person who was robbed at gunpoint. In fact I can't recall meeting a single person whose home was invaded by robbers. Almost every theft I've heard of has been an auto theft, usually of stereo equipment.
Someone should trot out home invasion statistics for Canada/US and armed home invasion statistics for both. How many times the home owners were shot in the case of an armed invasion and in how many cases of said shootings did the home owner try and defend themselves with a gun.
I suspect the statistics are quite low per capita and that if someone was truly concerned about safety it would be more meaningful to stop driving a car than to own a gun to protect yourself from robbers.
The chance of being robbed is higher in certain communities than other communities. You might do more to protect yourself from robberies by moving than you would by owning a gun.
I know I'm only 26 but I've never met anyone that has been robbed at gun point either.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Not sure what you are really getting at. Guns kill people. Hockey fights almost never kill people and certainly not the people watching.
There is no link between these two things, makes no sense to compare them.
Violence is Violence no matter how you try to spin it.
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
Bear mace is an extremely potent chemical, and you can't really miss with it. I've seen an entire house party cleared out from a tiny blast of the stuff.
All I know is if there was an intruder in my house with a gun, id rather have a gun then bear mace.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
